Kerbart

Fitting missions into Career was not something I expected, nor does it disappoint. It seems very hard to me to integrate the two, and it would make the missions very bug-prone and sketchy to use, probably with some very counterintuitive mechanics in there. Ooooh, wait... Now we’re talking about what is disappointing: Despite many “working hard to find all the bugs” text that was listed in the weekly updates, Missions are riddled with bugs. I’m not saying that I was expecting bug-free — leave it to the community to uncover esoteric Heisenbugs — but my god, encountering them within five minutes on the first flight of the first mission? It really makes me wonder what was tested. No clickable windows in IVA’s The issue listed in this post which I find incredibly hard to dismiss as a figment of imagination. Sure it could be intended this way. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck... I will be very disappointed if none of this gets fixed. But I’m sure Squad will do the right thing.

Not to mention that you’re forced to use the mini docking port. Under “my rules” it means I have to EVA Kerbals from one craft to anothers as they don’t fit through the docking port. But worse: it’s a wobbly connection. Why The didn’t introduce a combined docking port/chute for a more lifelike Apollo looking solution? Makes it also easier to mount the escape tower. I know such a mod exists... that’s not the point.

Nice job, @tater. However the jury will detract points for that solar panel. You should be using the fuel cells instead!

It’s of epic proportions. And with a nudge to rocket history I propose... TITANIC!

It’s $15. Brown bag lunch twice this week and it’s paid for. I will be disappointed if the glaring issues don’t get fixed though. Not limited to just these, but: mission play is buggy, to say the very least windows can’t be made viewpoints in the new capsules the rover wheels fold so little... what’s the point? I need a rover to fit in a 2.5m service module!

Yes... but technically it’s not the capsule where the problem is. It’s the Kerbals. I know that there are Gemini (and Soyuz!) mods where we have two Kerbals side by side in a 1.25m pod but it’s really stretching it. The total weight should be the same so for that 2.5m tanks wouldn’t cause the engines to be that much underpowered. But using the Titan-2 engine on a 2.5m tank would definitely look silly!

No need to be gutted. You might not qualify to get it for free, that doesn’t mean you won’t get it at all. It’s yours for the price of about one movie ticket, a few cups of Starbucks coffee, half a tank of gas or any of those other expenses we do on a regular basis, ie. nothing that is financially a big stretch for most. (If you can afford a computer to play KSP on you certainly can affort MH) So Squad can raise the price to, say, $80 to make the DLC worth more value for money?

One look at the crew will ruin any Gemini simulator intentions you had anyway. The tapered cone in the RL Gemini was there because there was a diameter mismatch between rocket and capsule. You don’t have that in KSP so I would go for the 1.8 geometry. That is what I will do, one of the reasons Gemini is my favorite program is because of the slick, streamlined looks of the Titan-2 LV. In my eyes that would get ruined by a 2.5m body. Instead of the quad RCS’s I would opt for the single ones, by the way. Again, much cleaner

Well, Squad has honoured the KSP tradition of having a questionable tech-tree. Doing a Sputnik or Vostok mission will reauire you to unlock about 1/3 to 1/2 of the Tech Tree, so there’s that. Personally I do intend to recreate all milestones of the early space age, in Sandbox mode, and perhaps post them on Youtube on a weekly basis. A mix of career/mission would be interesting. A career mode with a customized tech tree, contracts provided through the mission interface where completing missions unlocks the tech tree (or yields science points). Interesting concept for a new expansion Pack...

Hello @nestor, Thank you for your feedback and support. This will help many in figuring out missions. The behavior the game is displaying is far from intuitive and I hope this is offered as a work-around and not “this is how it works,” especially since it easily leads the game into a state (spaceflight without craft) where the only way to exit is to kill the KSP application. Reverting to the VAB should just as much be an option in flight #1 as in subsequent flight, in the ill advised case where that is not an option, “restart mission”should be pointed out as the only way forward at that point.

If only it could be written in a notation that is mathematically more accepted, like 3.5×1016 but I have to assume the forum software doesn't support that. The article raises more questions than it answers. So does the discovery, I guess.

They are there but the IVA isn't. Hence no portraits. Upgrading to 1.4.1 will solve your problem.

Human ingenuity will take care of that. You can launch multiple craft. Clash of Clans has build times of 10 days or more yet it is one of the most popular mobile games; nobody complains it's boring. Besides, why would a one day trip be boring?

More accurate? Yes. But better? Define better. Multiplying with 22/7 can be done without a calculator. 355/113 is much harder in that sense. If 22/7 yields good enough results, it's much better for that reason. It all depends on what's defined as better.

Without repeating the entire discussion, indeed very enjoyable and educational. A few comments of my own: You are brave to say the Russian don't know what they are doing and should do it the American way — in defense of "the Russians didn't know what they were doing" keep in mind, this was the beginning of space flight, so to a large extend design was indeed terra incognita and designing was to a large extend "throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks" I always wondered about why early Russian capsules were spheres and it never really dawned on me until I read the wikipedia quote listed above: "Landing system: Sphere made ballistic reentry, with shield side seeking correct orientation by virtue of the center of gravity being aft of the center of the sphere" — it's actually a genius design. You don't have to worry about the capsule having two or more aerodynamic equilibria (anyone whose capsule decided to ride out reentry "pointy end first" knows the joy of that). No extensive wind tunnel testing needed, not depending on complex calculations or (in those days likely not existing) simulations. A self-righting design obviously has benefits but getting the aerodynamics right might be tricky. In the race to get into space first, the Soviets didn't have the luxury of going through an extensive process to get the best capsule possible. They just went straight for "we know this works." I've always admired Soviet-style engineering designs. It might look primitive but it's amazingly effective. When Victor Belenko defected and landed his MiG 25 Foxbat in Japan, the jet was of course torn apart by Americans who were appalled over how primitive it was. From what I understood, after the collapse of the cold war, they found out that many of the "primitive" features were well thought out. Lots of stainless steel instead of exotic metals, it was apparently very heat resistant and easy to handle in the field. Radar electronics working with vacuum tubes had more to do with being EMP resistant than the state of Russian electronics, and so on. The Vostok design seems to fit right in.

There's a substantial difference between a peer-to-peer multiplayer version and a server driven, MMO style multiplayer where craft can exist in real time without the player logging on. Something T2 can pull off.You just get rid of time acceleration completely. Sure, certain burns might need to take place at really inconvenient moments, that's where thinking your maneuver nodes (which can show execution time in real earth date/time adjusted for your timezone) comes in play, as well as working in teams... let's call those teams "space agencies" I don't want to derail this thread and I'll happily take the discussion to a separate thread, but the gist is: multiplayer, in a different form than we have now, can certainly be an exciting option and offers a subscription model that players might find attractive. But it's not something that would come to us through an expansion pack that we need to pay for.

There are two aspects to Making History: Parts The Mission system The two work together; without the missions, MH would simply be a part-pack without generating much incentive to buy it; without parts, MH wouldn’t be offering enough to be attractive. So, I’m going to assume we’ll see something similar in the future. A set of parts, and an in-game extension that makes the parts more valuable and emphasizes the expansion character or the mod. candidates for that could be along the lines of: Robotics, and a programming console for it Basebuilding, and some kind of Elite kind of economy to fly resources between those bases RemoteTech, and programmable cores (doesn’t exclude the robotics in another round) Etc. Another option is a multiplayer service, but I suspect if we ever see that it will be seperate from expansions (albeit a good money maker for TT if implemented wisely. Keyword wisely).

Hi Nils, for what it’s worth, I don’t encounter the crashes. Only a lightly modded install (KER, BurningTime, and a few others, with one part mod from one crazy genius who makes these amazing planetary base parts). If anything, those mods should increase crashes if anything, right? I had like one hour on a virgin installation (because there are other bugs I run into...) without crashes either. Based on n=2 I’d say it’s not a bug everyone encounters. I feel for you because CTD’s are so annoying.

I haven’t tried this for other missions, but it doesn’t work for the Dawn Of Space mission. Not for me, not for @Suma and what I gather fro the forum, not for a whole bunch of other users. And this is on an unmodded (aside from MH) game. Still wondering if they actually playtested this mission before releasing the expansion. Because it’s pretty hard to not notice it.

In addition, if I remember correctly, the cut-off date had already a generous margin in it, (probably for this particular scenario). But yeah, whenever you draw a line at x, people who are at x + 1 will ask "why not me." It's not like the DLC is prohibitively expensive. Given the thousands of hours of playtime you get out of KSP, let alone the educational benefits that would cost you thousands of dollars to pursue in college, the $15 for the DLC was, at least for me, an amount I paid without even considering not doing it. Also: the closest comparable "DLC" I can think of is for MS Flightsim. It usually costs 3× as much and is in most cases a single airplane (admittedly of much, much higher quality than what Squad offers, but quantity is a factor here). All things considered, $15 is a reasonable price. Y'all got spoiled with high quality mods for free — just because your neighbor won a $30,000 car in a TV Show doesn't mean Chevrolet is ripping you off when they want $5,000 for a brand new Equinox.

May I dare a suggestion? There is no T-6 (62.5cm) structural tube. Of course one can use empty fuel tanks (Oscar-B and Mk0) but I think the whole point of the structural tubes is that you don't have to. I suspect it's merely a matter of doing some MM Magic but I'm clueless about that, and this seems to be the perfect place for them anyway.

As mentioned by others: Start Dawn of Space Age mission Fail a flight (in the first flight, forget to stage parachute and booster separately, for instance) "Revert to VAB" is greyed out "Recover Vessel" leaves the game in an unplayable mode; the KSC has all buildings including the VAB locked. If at this point you leave the game and then continue the mission, you end up in flight without a vessel, time is -1, and no interaction is possible.

I encounter the same issue. Except that reverting to the VAB is not even an option. Recovery it is. Make a mistake, and it's game over. This is the first flight of the first mission. I'd like to hear from @SQUAD how this managed to sail past QA. And yes, it's perfectly reproducible, every single time, on a virgin installation.

Wow. That's sad.

You can take out fuel. That's probably part of the "puzzle" A bigger issue is that if the first flight doesn't end in success. A friend told me they forgot to separate the staging between chute and booster; something that I myself would of course never do. After "recover flight" he ended up at the KSC menu screen, with all facilities closed, and no other options available.